Mrs Thatcher changed rules for Murdoch

0
Have your say

From: Richard Billups, East Avenue, Rawmarsh, Rotherham.

THE News International revelations will mean history is rewritten. Maggie Thatcher will go from Iron Lady to rust bucket for the sycophantic way she treated Rupert Murdoch’s request to change the rules on media ownership in 1989.

No company could own newspapers and television. But the rules were changed and Murdoch got Sky.

With that much power Murdoch was crowned king. Now we see why all who followed Mrs Thatcher into No 10 were behind the eight ball from day one.

Even when the game was up for the Murdochs, David Cameron still dragged his feet and I don’t think he will be Prime Minister for long. He has shown he is not mentally strong enough. I am not a fan of William Hague but in the same position Mr Hague’s Yorkshire street-wise thinking would have cut the Murdochs adrift. Now it won’t be long before we have a new PM.

Naturally, you would look at the Chancellor but when it is George Osborne that is going from the chameleon to the ridiculous. Nick Clegg? Wrong party, so it’s William Hague for me, a Yorkshire lad.

Can he do the job? He’d have a clean sheet media wise and be his own man.

From: Tom Howley, Marston Way, Wetherby.

MARGARET Thatcher freed up the financial sector, and her short-sighted policies resulted in greedy bankers loaning money without regard to the ability to repay and awarding themselves obscene salaries and bonuses from the profits. Prime Minister Thatcher allowed Rupert Murdoch to buy Times Newspapers by re-writing the rules on media ownership. The result was that the Australian was permitted to exercise power over politicians by the threat of retaliation if policies were introduced which Murdoch did not favour.

From: John Senior, Birchfield Grove, Skelmanthorpe, Huddersfield.

WHILE the spotlight is on the media, I believe that some consideration should be given to the rights of television companies to broadcast live Premiership football matches, the cream of the sport.

I understand that it is possible for a single television company to acquire the rights to be the sole live broadcaster, in this country, of the majority of Premiership football. I realise that this is in the best interests of the clubs, their staff and the television company but I fail to see how it is in the public interest.

If a major supermarket chain was allowed to acquire the same majority of the cream produced in this country and then only sell it to people who agreed to purchase other dairy products from them, the Press would, quite rightly, condemn the competition authorities.

Is it possible that some television companies are treated differently to supermarkets because of their owners’ ability to aid or hinder politicians’ aspirations.

From: Stephen Nichols, Leyburn Avenue, Lightcliffe, Halifax.

I READ the front page regarding the fiasco at the Parliamentary Select Committee questioning of Rupert Murdoch (Yorkshire Post, July 20), which I watched with great interest, particularly when the protester disgracefully managed to enter the chamber without being apprehended by the Metropolitan Police and attempted to attack Mr Murdoch.

The only funny thing for me was the comment by the Labour MP for West Bromwich East, Tom Watson, who said afterwards: “Your wife has a great left hook”. Can we trust our politicians with anything? It was a right hook and not a very good one.

From: Don Burslam, Elm Road, Dewsbury Moor, Dewsbury.

I DO see in this rapidly mutating phone hacking scandal a certain poetic justice. Various electronic devices, which are a closed book to me, have been taken up by a lot of unscrupulous figures.

They have been used by politicians to manipulate voters to help win elections and by the media to sell newspapers by obtaining “scoops” by illegitimate means. Now the whole miserable business of hacking and blagging has blown up in their faces.

Unfortunately, now the genie is out of the bottle, we are stuck with these objectionable forms of communication.

No number of inquiries by the judiciary and the police will stop the future use, and misuse, of these devices.

Hunting Act works well

From: Joe Duckworth, chief executive, League Against Cruel Sport, Godalming, Surrey.

ALICE Barnard’s naïve response to the latest Ministry of Justice figures on hunting (Yorkshire Post, July 21) simply illustrate her lack of understanding of the police, Crown Prosecution Service and legal processes.

Is it possible that Ms Barnard actually believes her own tired spin that the CPS doesn’t fully understand the legislative system and is prosecuting hunting offences under the wrong laws?

The Hunting Act is a robust and effective piece of legislation which has been hugely successful in prosecuting illegal hunters. There are perfectly workable poaching laws under which illegal poachers can be prosecuted and to suggest the police and CPS don’t know this is ludicrous.

Hunting crimes will be prosecuted under the Hunting Act and poaching crimes under the relevant poaching and game Acts.

This is just another desperate PR attempt from the Countryside Alliance to belittle a law which prevents a minority chasing and killing wild animals for fun.

Back to the top of the page